Author: Sarah Ann Mathew

Knowledge Production in Children’s Storytelling: Crakers for Kids

Creating this project was as much a reflective process as it was a creative one. In addition to choosing a story-line, we had discussed stylistic choices, such as semantics, plot, who the writer would be (human, craker, or future craker), etc.

Choosing who the author would be is important because depending on who, there will be certain intentions in the writing style and plot. For example, if the writer was a human, they would probably imbue their writing with lessons and bias. This is similar to how Toby and Snowman don’t actually give the Crakers neutral statements or facts; Toby’s spiritual beliefs and Snowman’s familiarity with mythology heavily influence what they say to the Crakers. (I guess this would be inactive knowledge reproduction/influence?) If the writer were a Craker, they would be concerned with the facts, the history, and would explicitly mention any lessons. We agreed to have the author as a Craker, specifically one from the future. Another reason this is interesting is because over time, mythology tends to change and the differences in our stories from the novel will reflect a the affect of time passing, and also what a Craker’s interpretation events would be like.

Next, we chose a medium. We decided to mostly use collage. We assumed that if the Crakers were to create a book, they would glean the materials around them, instead of drawing. Watching my group members construct their stories was very interesting. They used different materials like tissue paper, stickers, and pop-outs. They also drew very cute pictures. Their parts flow smoothly.

For my part, I literally made collages. I found children’s books in my home, and I cut out things that were relevant to my story, or that I thought I could use. I actually cut them from some biblical story books, and Highlight magazines. Even though I had created a story prior, when making collages, the pieces that you can or cannot find can change your story. For example, I originally wanted Zeb to eat a bear, but I didn’t find enough pictures of bears in the first place. But I had enough snakes, so my original idea changed.

This whole process was very interesting to me because of a story can change depending on the resources that are around. You can’t mention too many things, or obscure things if you don’t have simple definitions (in this case, pictures) to explain it.

My part also has different versions of the characters. For example, Rev the Terror has 3-4 different variations of dog breeds. Explaining the idea of species and breeds to Crakers would be a little difficult, so having the variations identified as “Rev”, or more simply, “dog” is a very Craker-like mental process.

To construct my character, I found a few articles on tricksters in mythology and folklore. I decided to create Zeb as a self-preserving (objectivist) kind of trickster. This means he doesn’t get involved unless it benefits him. In my story, he doesn’t get involved with Rev until he is directly provoked.

I also decided to create the trickster/hero as a snake, and the villain as a dog. Dogs have always been seen in a positive light, and snakes seen as dangerous (which is true for certain snakes, but the whole Adam&Eve expulsion doesn’t help).  We are biologically programmed to not get too chummy with reptiles, but going along with the theme of the novels, I think this biology can change. The snake (and the character) don’t have to be labeled as evil; the dog may be (which makes sense with the wolvogs running around).

Bastardized Biriyani, $7

Food is culturally significant and ultimately reflective of the relationships (social and economic) we have with other people. For example, I have to prevent a destructive relationship when finding out someone is a picky eater (not eating when something looks weird to them), or when they say that they dislike food from a particular region (“Oh, I don’t like Asian food- like from the East”). When making broad statements like the latter, I find it to be somewhat problematic to be placing thousands of years of spice and cooking under one kind of taste. In this way, we can relate how people treat immigrants. Often natives force the latter group to reinvent themselves to be acknowledged and accepted by the community. We can see a result of this process maybe through the naming of the Tex-Mexs and the Asian Fusions in the MaddAddam Trilogy. At the end of this process, natives force these groups to become tasteless and completely different versions of themselves to be appealing.

Food appropriators tend to take a certain culture’s food and change it to make it appealing to certain groups.  Basically, they bastardize the original cuisine. Look at Taco Bell, Curry-in-a-Hurry, even Chipotle (oh please, it’s Tex-Mex-Cajun). They have an image of being ethnic but send out food that the respective, typical cooks from the culture would not send out (the women, the mothers, the wives). [My mom has a lewd phrase for people who make terrible chai, she told me that that stuff is what you clean your butt with. If there was an equivalent for crap imitation food I would use it here.]

I think this is strongly related to how PoC are put together in the series. Tex-Mex exists for natives. Asian Fusion is probably a group made of people from different ethnicities, but it was probably easier to combine everyone into group, and have one name. If these groups chose their names for themselves, they are internalizing how they are being seen by society and are thus making themselves digestable and acceptable for others. People in the series are there to be consumed- sometimes literally, since it is rumored human carbon is used in burgers. Even for characters who are “needed”, they are treated as objects. Companies literally bid on high school graduates, and buy them to work. Even if Crake is bought by the most prestigious corporation, he was still objectified. MaddAddamites were weaponized.

In the books, we don’t even have distinct characteristic for any PoC group mentioned, which sheds light on how useless it is to categorize them are. The only thing we know about the Asian Fusions is that they are vicious, which we would assume that all the gangs are like. The Tex-Mex migrate. These names are meaningless when they are used by others in society.

I recently read an article going over how people don’t really love ethnic food. They love what is specifically prepared for them. The over-spiciness of “Indian” food, which for them, is the distinct (and only) characteristic of that kind of cuisine. This is usually prepared by Indian men here who don’t understand the nuances of cooking those dishes, and then package it for natives specifically (fattier and spicier than normal). The sweetened pad thai dish. People think they love these ethnic foods, but they’ll only eat it when it’s not an authentic dish, and most of the time, they’ve only had a few of these dishes. I can literally list the Indian and Thai dishes most people typically have, on one hand: chicken tikki masala, paneer, naan (Indian); pad thai, drunken noodles (thai). I typically feel incredulous when people say they love a certain culture’s food with little experience, and feel more strongly this way when people say they dislike it.

A particular culture’s cuisine has an array of dishes. This is not to say there may not be an underlying connection, but it is a little messed up to dislike a whole region’s food based on a dish or two. If anything, a lot of frequented “ethnic” places serve trash food, as do fusions. I had biriyani from an Indian place on W4th for my friend to try, and it was bland (somehow it was popular, though??). I went to Japan this past winter, and they seriously bastardize French culture and food. Most of their appropriated food, called yoshoku, is terrible. If any of you go there, don’t try “american dogs”.

Often, immigrants package their food here in a way to be accepted my natives, much like they do with their behavior and character. It’s assimilation, instead of integration.

Politics and Power of Physicians

Atwood explores the troubling extent to which physicians are involved in people’s lives. Although doctors are supposed to inform their patients in various options they can take in a neutral manner, they often contaminate it with their own personal opinions, or extend ones from the state or larger power. 

One example where we see physician-patient relations failing is with Toby’s mother. She “came down with a  strange illness”, despite leading a healthy, careful lifestyle. When she tries to address this problem, “no doctor could give her a diagnosis, though many tests were done by the HelthWyzer Corp clinics” (22). Immediately, the reader suspects the HelthWyzer Corp (HWC) of sabotaging Toby’s mother. We are not surprised by this because Crake reveals the past evils that HWC has carried out. Even if we didn’t know about these activities, the fact that she left her health in the hands of one clinic, of one entity is problematic. Leaving decisions about major health issues to one doctor is dangerous. This issue is supported by, Gina Kolata, a medical journalist who wrote “Smart Patient” through The New York Times. In it, she explains how to minimize risk to your health. One significant way is to seek a second opinion concerning a major medical issue or decision. Often, physicians will provide different diagnosis’ and remedies. She examines a case study to support this disparity; in it, there were professionals who examined a blood sample, and 80% of the opinions provided were in disagreement. (You can buy her ebook here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Smart-Patient-Mistakes-Health-ebook/dp/B00MI19CIA) So seeing only one physician really isn’t wise (get it? HelthWyzer). Although seeking a second, even third opinion would be best, it is not easy for many people to do, as it can be costly and time consuming.

Another issue is that some physicians may advocate certain courses of action as the better choice for a patient, even though a patient may feel so otherwise. Roberts focuses on how counselors and doctors disapprove when women/couples decide against selective abortion. They use arguments such as giving better chance of survival to other fertilized eggs, or to not allowing “defective” ones to suffer a life from some disability. Although these are choices that are for a woman to decide on, these procedures are recommend/pushed onto them. Toby’s mother continued getting sick despite taking HelthWyzer supplements- yet the way that Toby described it makes it seem as if her mother was suspicious of the treatment as well. 

The physicians are also forced to provide genetic screening, and this pressure is placed onto women as well to be a responsible parent (Roberts). This is an extension of the state looking down on ‘defective’ individuals, and avoiding focusing on social problems. One way we can see this is how everyone in the compounds are worried about getting sick or appearing like a pleeb, although they really have no information about them. Compounders speak about pleebs like they are pariahs- there is nothing actually wrong with them. The disconnect and injustice is just not addressed.

One way the state and physicians impose beliefs onto parents is when sex is assigned to a baby. For many intersex youth, a sex must be given to them within the first day, even though the parents are unsure. Even if it’s not required in that time period, parents are often pressured to assign one to conform to social expectation. Germany recently allowed third gender to appear on birth certificates- this allows time for parents (but mainly the child) to decide what sex they are (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/01/242366812/germany-offers-third-gender-option-on-birth-certificates). Australia allows for people to have a gender “X” on passports. These societal expectations are often enforced under the guise of medical science (which Somerville examines).